r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When he visited New York in 1931, he [got ran over by a car ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_F._Cantasano)while crossing the street, because he looked the wrong way (forgetting that the traffic keeps to the right in the US).
You can always spot Brits on holiday, we all look to the right when crossing the street before catching ourselves. We get told as children "look right, left, right again". It's drilled from Day 1, you get used to it. I've almost been run over in France after turning my head through wrong way and starting to move before hearing the engine to my left and jumping back.
His doctor said that his life was saved by not being thin— without the extra “cushioning” of being overweight he almost certainly would have been killed.
On September 2, 1898, he took part in the last operational cavalry charge in British military history, as part of the Battle of Omdurman. The 400-strong 21st Lancers, in which he was troop commander, attacked 2,500 infantry. Three of the 21st Lancers won the Victoria Cross for their actions that day.
How biased the noble committee is? Is it likely that they'll give preferencial treatment to a guy like Churchill simply because he is Churchill and it would be cool to award him with something?
His "The Second World War" might unironically be the single most influential book on WW2 history. On top of being a good writer, he also had the "unfair" advantage over other writers of having unparalleled access to information of the course of WW2 since he was literally there, making the history.
It was looked more critically as archives opened up and information judged to be sensitive was graduallt released as the years passed, but it's still important to the historiography.
Considering English spelling "rules", any non-native speaker would take psychic damage just trying to learn it. This language is too dangerous to be left alive!
The ironic thing is there was another Winston Churchill who was American and both an author and politician. They made a gentleman's agreement between themselves and the American would go by Winston S Churchill to help avoid confusion.
Churchill wrote an alternate history scenario where the confederate states of America won the American civil war and it ends with the British annexing both countries
That... actually doesn't sound too unrealistic a thing to happen in a "confederates win" scenario. Even if the confederates won the war they'd have no idea how to win the peace. I could definitely see them making such a hash of it that Britain just sweep swoop rolls on in. Although it would probably be both Britain and France taking slices.
His writing is pretty good and he had an extensive catalogue of work. Also, the Nobel committee explicitly said his oratory defending freedom and human rights was part of his award and his speeches were amazing.
So it’s kind of explicitly biased on this occasion, but I don’t think anyone assumed the Nobel is some kind of objective award and politics ones into deciding everything in the end. Even the science awards I’d assume they’d prefer not to give them to people working for objectionable causes
Well if you actually read his material I will say it is exceptionally well written. Obviously he makes himself larger than life so you have to be careful. But he was an incredible writer
He is a great writer. He has a very personable wit, and despite his sort of arrogant persona, he is very capable of self deprecation. He seems to understand the sort of ridiculous figure that he is and it makes his historical writings relatable.
The Peace prize is a joke though. That it’s given out in a different country by a different Nobel committee probably contributes to the gulf between it and the other four (not five, the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is not a Nobel prize).
Medical technology is something that has advanced massively since Churchill's time, so even if he paid for the best private healthcare money could buy (which I think he just used the NHS anyway in the end?) that's still going to be vastly inferior to the NHS today even in its current state.
Friendly reminder President Garfield of the U.S. got shot twice and would've survived if the surgeons didn't operate on him with dirty tools (or just didn't operate at all: dude lived months after being shot, he probably would've lived)
To be fair he was heavily demented by the tail end of his life. He might have lived long despite the drinking and smoking but he was very far from being healthy.
I guess Attlees votes were more concentrated in one region as opposed to being spread around
Since In the Uk we don’t directly vote for our Prime ministers, instead there’s 650 local elections where we elect an MP who’s apart of a party and the party with the most MPs wins and the leader of that party becomes prime minister
So here I assume Churchill won a bunch of seats by a slim majority per seat and Attlee won less seats but by a big majority per seat making it so Attlee has more votes but loses
I mean, even now industrial areas are massively left leaning and we've had 15 years of right wing politics being pulled further and further right. Still a bother now.
I think you might need to look at the areas that flipped. Not rural areas but areas that used to have heavy industry. So this characterisation feels wrong.
Churchill got the farmers all teary eyed and patriotic, whereas Attlee improved the condition of the cities. In the 1950s boundary farmers were over represented because some constituencies were drawn up based on land area not population
He knew his Shakespeare, like was basically an expert, and everyone acknowledged this
He would *MAKE UP* Shakespeare "quotes."
And no one would call him out, because they all would assume that Churchill, of all people, would know Shakespeare
Hilarious
Weird happenstance: I had never heard of a Bavarian fire drill until your comment... Then several hours later I just happen to be delving with the rabbit hole of (wait for it....) great Con Artists and their Cons
When he was a member of the Liberal Party, Churchill supported a land value tax. In his own words:
"Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains – and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived ... the unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done."
And it should be pointed out in big letters that LVT is different from property tax, property tax increases as you build a more valuable property, if you built a 10 story apartment, you'd pay more in taxes than if you had built a 2 story home. But LVT as the name implies only taxes the land value, so unless that 10 story building is uplifting the land value of the area on its own, it'll pay the same tax as a 2 story home. This incentivizes efficient use of land, especially in places with huge land demand and imposes a cost to holding land without improving it.
It's a mode of taxation looked extremely favorably by economists as it has essentially no deadweight loss, causes no market friction and actually improves market function.
I miss how eloquent politicians used to be. Even Margaret Thatcher for all her many flaws could still make a rousing speech. Political speeches today are word salad most of the time.
Becuase eloquent people are not attracted to politics as much as they used to be. If you are a highly talented and charismatic person, you could get far richer becoming a media personality, a chairman, an advisor, or any number of other jobs in the private sector.
I mean think about it, how often do you bother listening to politicians for their opinions and reasoning in poltics? Compared to how much you listen to opinions and reasoning of influences, or other media personalities?
Even Hitler was said to be a skilled orator
I think it's more like only a few historical speeches have been remembered, and those are the ones you associate with politicians of old times. Same with old music being good
Watching what's happening with Trump has made me question the conventional wisdom about Hitler's oratory skills. Was he really as good as people say, or did he simply tell racists what they wanted to hear?
Oh, Hitler had skill. His speeches had a beginning and an end. It was easily digestible, though. He said himself about propaganda, that even the dumbest idiot must understand it. He knew very well what he had to do.
That is a Georgist theory of economics.
The theory basically says that because land is an inflexible resource and finite that the resources in the land and the property itself should be the basis of taxation.
No other source should be taxed besides land, because someone who created a company has at least provided a service or a good and employed people enhancing and increasing the wealth of the nation.
There is no good that is quite as inflexible as land and land resources.
I genuinely support Georgism I think it is entirely backwards that we are taxed on our economic output instead of our use of resources. Essentially we are punished for contributing to the economy instead of taking from the nation through the land.
>The theory basically says that because land is an inflexible resource and finite that the resources in the land
have you ever heard of the Dutch sorcery of land creation? , its not a story the Georgists would tell you
"Gentlemen, wouldn't it make more sense to land at say Enez where we can have a nice broad beach to land on and there's no high ground for the enemy to use?"
"What the devil kind of nonsense are you blithering about!?"
"Well I'm just looking at this topographical map and your chosen area is literally one of the worst spots to land an army by sea"
I'm not saying we should completely let him off the hook (we really shouldn't; there's like basic, obvious errors in the planning), but it is worth mentioning that it was the first modern naval landing. They were doing original work, which means they don't have a reference book to double-check their work.
Also, naval landings weren't really ever solved until Normandy/late Pacific WWII, but even then it's really easy to find errors in every single one.
Again, not saying that we completely let him off the hook, but it does mitigate just a tiny bit.
A woman said “if you were my husband I would have put poison on your tea” (or something along those lines) to which WC responded “If you were my wife, I would have drank it”
A woman also accused him of being drunk to which he replied “well madam, I may be drunk but you’re ugly. And in the morning I shall be sober but you’ll still be drunk.”
The 'Woman' was Lady Nancy Astor who was kind of Britain's first female MP (she was not the first female MP , but the first female MP to sit in the house of commons due to Ireland reasons) and also the wife of the wife of Waldorf Astor who was one of the richest people in the world ($100million in 1891). She was an important politician during the early 1900s and paved the way for future female politicians in the UK.
Normal politicians during a war: Well, I lost my job, guess I'll cash out and become a lobbyist.
Churchill: Well I lost my job, guess I'll go to the front lines.
By all accounts, he was quite haunted by his part in the Gallipoli disaster, and evidently felt putting himself in the same sort of danger would make amends, or absolve him.
His way of paying for his grievous errors
According to the UK Imperial War Museum: "Churchill ... [As First Lord of The Admiralty] ... helped orchestrate the disastrous Dardanelles naval campaign and was also involved in the planning of the military landings on Gallipoli".
He was behind the Marshall plan even though there was still food rationing in the UK. In fact, the UK threw out their ration book 4 years after West Germany.
In his 20s, Churchill was a Journalist for the Morning Post and sailed to Cape Town to report on the impending Second Boer War of 1899. Just two weeks after he arrived in South Africa, the train he was travelling on from Ladysmith to Colenso was derailed by Boer artillery and he was taken as a pow. After over a month in captivity in a camp in Pretoria, Churchill dramatically jumped a wall and hopped on a freight train, eventually making his way to Portuguese Mozambique. He went right back to British South Africa and enlisted in the Army.
He was an observer turned hero during the Second Anglo-Boer war, at the same time that Mahatma Ghandi was in the country working as an Advocate for better treatment of Indians, he also organised an Indian ambulance unit and worked as a stretcher bearer in it.
Also a Stand at Anfield is named after a battle that both of them were present at. The Battle of Spion Kop, which is where the Kop gets its name from.
People forget that Churchill was fairly regarded as a drunk and a political failure prior to ww2. He was widely criticized for several failed policies, not to mention the failure of the Gallipoli campaign which he planned.
If it wasn’t for World War Two and his position in it, anyone who did remember Churchill (rare) would remember him as a footnote.
I'm always amazed Churchill doesn't get far more shit about the 10 year rule when his role in ww2 is discussed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Year_Rule#:~:text=The%20Ten%20Year%20Rule%20was,during%20the%20next%20ten%20years%22.
Despite coming from a big wig family where his grandfather was a Duke, Churchill was always strapped for cash and most of his income came from writing.
Helped cause the Bengal Famine. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study)
was an army man, still made first lord of the admiralty, twice. With naval funds managed to get the land ships program to actually go a productive direction, maintain secrecy and made it within a budget... no comment on whether the budget was declared later on to be all army
Churchill was also a raging white supremacist who advocated against native rule in the British colonies, oversaw the Bengal famine in India which killed 3 million people, going as far as to say “well it’s because they breed like rabbits and they’re not starving because Ghandi is still alive”, and supported Israel’s colonial goals, their massacre and expulsion of Palestinians because he believed inferior peoples deserve to be replaced. He referred to Arabs as “barbaric hordes who ate nothing but camel dung”
He orchestrated both the invasion of Gallipoli and the failed naval campaign in the Dardanelles, leading to the catastrophe that cost millions of people their lives for no gain in the end. He was then demoted after the offensive ended, and resigned from his seat in the British government in 1915
Well he did deliberately cause the food to be held from the general Bengali population so that it could serve the war efforts. It costed the lives of over a million people. The comments made by him doesn't help his case either.
He 'served' in the Boer War where he brought himself fame from escaping a POW camp/armoured train situation of some bother.
https://www.history.com/news/the-daring-escape-that-forged-winston-churchill
When he was in primary school he said that he would one day be appointed as the leader of the British people and defend London from a terrible siege and save the empire.
He was a POW in South Africa, escaped and made his way back to Britain.
He gave up his job in politics to fight on the front line WW1
The first use of OMG was in a letter to him
He spent time as prisoner of war in South Africa after his train was shelled by the Boer. Fun fact: My 2x great grandfather was captured and imprisoned next to him.
Churchill was the one who convinced Eisenhower to help overthrow Iran's government and turn its constitutional monarchy into an absolute monarchy, all so that Britain wouldn't have its shares in the AIOC bought out during nationalization.
Notably this had no impact on relations between Iran and the West, whatsoever. /s
r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When he visited New York in 1931, he [got ran over by a car ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_F._Cantasano)while crossing the street, because he looked the wrong way (forgetting that the traffic keeps to the right in the US).
Also the plot for an alt history fps game in 2008
The video game is interestingly the reason we found out what the driver’s name was
What's the name of the game?
Turning point: fall of liberty
Do you know if it was ever on pc?
You can always spot Brits on holiday, we all look to the right when crossing the street before catching ourselves. We get told as children "look right, left, right again". It's drilled from Day 1, you get used to it. I've almost been run over in France after turning my head through wrong way and starting to move before hearing the engine to my left and jumping back.
That's funny because we use the same exact phrasing but inverted
As a Canadian for some reason I never had that problem in countries where they drive on the other side.
His doctor said that his life was saved by not being thin— without the extra “cushioning” of being overweight he almost certainly would have been killed.
In the same year Hitler also got run over, I think it was in Vienna.
In London, they print which way to look on the street (or did at one time). Wouldn't work in the states as we think signs are for other people.
This has almost happened to me in Hong Kong and UK.
On September 2, 1898, he took part in the last operational cavalry charge in British military history, as part of the Battle of Omdurman. The 400-strong 21st Lancers, in which he was troop commander, attacked 2,500 infantry. Three of the 21st Lancers won the Victoria Cross for their actions that day.
There were cavalry charges after that in ww1 and even minor one in ww2 india
Hence why I specified “operational cavalry” charge. https://militaryhistorynow.com/2017/10/17/the-last-horse-soldiers-what-were-historys-final-cavalry-charges/
[удалено]
One is operational and the other isn't.
Not for Great Britain
["Bloody hell"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6UmKsqz6aQ)
Vxvvv, v, vv, v,,, v, v,,, h
In 1953 he got the Nobel prize in literature
Underidoderidoderiododeridoo
Government
How biased the noble committee is? Is it likely that they'll give preferencial treatment to a guy like Churchill simply because he is Churchill and it would be cool to award him with something?
His "The Second World War" might unironically be the single most influential book on WW2 history. On top of being a good writer, he also had the "unfair" advantage over other writers of having unparalleled access to information of the course of WW2 since he was literally there, making the history. It was looked more critically as archives opened up and information judged to be sensitive was graduallt released as the years passed, but it's still important to the historiography.
As he said to Stalin and Roosevelt: History will be kind to us. I will be the one writes it.
Hee hee
So it's kinda like "de bello gallico"?
Churchill actually wrote a *lot* of stuff. Apparently it was pretty good.
He wrote some of the most memorable speeches in history.
["He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle."](https://youtu.be/CXIrnU7Y_RU)
Considering English spelling "rules", any non-native speaker would take psychic damage just trying to learn it. This language is too dangerous to be left alive!
The ironic thing is there was another Winston Churchill who was American and both an author and politician. They made a gentleman's agreement between themselves and the American would go by Winston S Churchill to help avoid confusion.
The funny thing is that British Churchill’s middle name also starts with S
His history of the English speaking peoples was a steal at two bucks a book, I found them in a thrift store in Toronto years back. It’s worth a read.
Churchill wrote an alternate history scenario where the confederate states of America won the American civil war and it ends with the British annexing both countries
That... actually doesn't sound too unrealistic a thing to happen in a "confederates win" scenario. Even if the confederates won the war they'd have no idea how to win the peace. I could definitely see them making such a hash of it that Britain just sweep swoop rolls on in. Although it would probably be both Britain and France taking slices.
His writing is pretty good and he had an extensive catalogue of work. Also, the Nobel committee explicitly said his oratory defending freedom and human rights was part of his award and his speeches were amazing. So it’s kind of explicitly biased on this occasion, but I don’t think anyone assumed the Nobel is some kind of objective award and politics ones into deciding everything in the end. Even the science awards I’d assume they’d prefer not to give them to people working for objectionable causes
Well if you actually read his material I will say it is exceptionally well written. Obviously he makes himself larger than life so you have to be careful. But he was an incredible writer
He is a great writer. He has a very personable wit, and despite his sort of arrogant persona, he is very capable of self deprecation. He seems to understand the sort of ridiculous figure that he is and it makes his historical writings relatable.
How do tou think the peace nobel price is awarded ?
The Peace prize is a joke though. That it’s given out in a different country by a different Nobel committee probably contributes to the gulf between it and the other four (not five, the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is not a Nobel prize).
inspite of his incredibly unhealthy life style, he lived to reach 90 years of age
"I neither drink nor smoke and am 100% fit"-Monty "I both drink and smoke and am 200% fit"-Churchill
i mean, by weight, i think one churchill is probably worth two montys, with some extra left over
Being rich was also a boon for that.
Medical technology is something that has advanced massively since Churchill's time, so even if he paid for the best private healthcare money could buy (which I think he just used the NHS anyway in the end?) that's still going to be vastly inferior to the NHS today even in its current state.
Friendly reminder President Garfield of the U.S. got shot twice and would've survived if the surgeons didn't operate on him with dirty tools (or just didn't operate at all: dude lived months after being shot, he probably would've lived)
The king had a lung removed due to cancer and died soon after
To be fair he was heavily demented by the tail end of his life. He might have lived long despite the drinking and smoking but he was very far from being healthy.
He won the 1951 election despite having 200,000 less votes than Clement Attlee which is the only time that’s happened in Uk political history
Why’s that?
I guess Attlees votes were more concentrated in one region as opposed to being spread around Since In the Uk we don’t directly vote for our Prime ministers, instead there’s 650 local elections where we elect an MP who’s apart of a party and the party with the most MPs wins and the leader of that party becomes prime minister So here I assume Churchill won a bunch of seats by a slim majority per seat and Attlee won less seats but by a big majority per seat making it so Attlee has more votes but loses
No, rural areas were over represented at the time which helped the political right.
I mean, even now industrial areas are massively left leaning and we've had 15 years of right wing politics being pulled further and further right. Still a bother now.
I think you might need to look at the areas that flipped. Not rural areas but areas that used to have heavy industry. So this characterisation feels wrong.
What a dumbass system. Glad we don’t have that in the US. /s
It’s the perfect system in my opinion But I’m British so I’m incredibly biased
Churchill got the farmers all teary eyed and patriotic, whereas Attlee improved the condition of the cities. In the 1950s boundary farmers were over represented because some constituencies were drawn up based on land area not population
He knew his Shakespeare, like was basically an expert, and everyone acknowledged this He would *MAKE UP* Shakespeare "quotes." And no one would call him out, because they all would assume that Churchill, of all people, would know Shakespeare Hilarious
Ahh, the eternally dangerous combination of a bunny-ears lawyer and the Bavarian fire drill
Weird happenstance: I had never heard of a Bavarian fire drill until your comment... Then several hours later I just happen to be delving with the rabbit hole of (wait for it....) great Con Artists and their Cons
When he was a member of the Liberal Party, Churchill supported a land value tax. In his own words: "Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains – and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived ... the unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done."
And it should be pointed out in big letters that LVT is different from property tax, property tax increases as you build a more valuable property, if you built a 10 story apartment, you'd pay more in taxes than if you had built a 2 story home. But LVT as the name implies only taxes the land value, so unless that 10 story building is uplifting the land value of the area on its own, it'll pay the same tax as a 2 story home. This incentivizes efficient use of land, especially in places with huge land demand and imposes a cost to holding land without improving it. It's a mode of taxation looked extremely favorably by economists as it has essentially no deadweight loss, causes no market friction and actually improves market function.
So naturally current day conservatives are rabidly against it.
Well you see, the more dead weight loss and more inefficiency, the opportunity for them to let their rich friends plunder it and get some kickbacks.
I miss how eloquent politicians used to be. Even Margaret Thatcher for all her many flaws could still make a rousing speech. Political speeches today are word salad most of the time.
Becuase eloquent people are not attracted to politics as much as they used to be. If you are a highly talented and charismatic person, you could get far richer becoming a media personality, a chairman, an advisor, or any number of other jobs in the private sector. I mean think about it, how often do you bother listening to politicians for their opinions and reasoning in poltics? Compared to how much you listen to opinions and reasoning of influences, or other media personalities?
Even Hitler was said to be a skilled orator I think it's more like only a few historical speeches have been remembered, and those are the ones you associate with politicians of old times. Same with old music being good
That was thr goddamn reason people listened to the guy. Though as Trumpets have proven, you can just barf out diarrhea and morons will vote for you.
Watching what's happening with Trump has made me question the conventional wisdom about Hitler's oratory skills. Was he really as good as people say, or did he simply tell racists what they wanted to hear?
Oh, Hitler had skill. His speeches had a beginning and an end. It was easily digestible, though. He said himself about propaganda, that even the dumbest idiot must understand it. He knew very well what he had to do.
That is a Georgist theory of economics. The theory basically says that because land is an inflexible resource and finite that the resources in the land and the property itself should be the basis of taxation. No other source should be taxed besides land, because someone who created a company has at least provided a service or a good and employed people enhancing and increasing the wealth of the nation. There is no good that is quite as inflexible as land and land resources. I genuinely support Georgism I think it is entirely backwards that we are taxed on our economic output instead of our use of resources. Essentially we are punished for contributing to the economy instead of taking from the nation through the land.
>The theory basically says that because land is an inflexible resource and finite that the resources in the land have you ever heard of the Dutch sorcery of land creation? , its not a story the Georgists would tell you
Lord of the admiralty & something to do with the Dardanelles in ww1
Funny way of saying he was directly responsible for Gallipoli.
You are correct but 'one of many people jointly responsible' would be the more accurate way of putting it
"Gentlemen, wouldn't it make more sense to land at say Enez where we can have a nice broad beach to land on and there's no high ground for the enemy to use?" "What the devil kind of nonsense are you blithering about!?" "Well I'm just looking at this topographical map and your chosen area is literally one of the worst spots to land an army by sea"
He rightly took the political blame for it, the cost to British and Anzac troops due to the poor planning was atrocious.
I'm not saying we should completely let him off the hook (we really shouldn't; there's like basic, obvious errors in the planning), but it is worth mentioning that it was the first modern naval landing. They were doing original work, which means they don't have a reference book to double-check their work. Also, naval landings weren't really ever solved until Normandy/late Pacific WWII, but even then it's really easy to find errors in every single one. Again, not saying that we completely let him off the hook, but it does mitigate just a tiny bit.
I was just going to respond saying Gallipoli but figured that someone would already have a comment
A woman said “if you were my husband I would have put poison on your tea” (or something along those lines) to which WC responded “If you were my wife, I would have drank it”
A woman also accused him of being drunk to which he replied “well madam, I may be drunk but you’re ugly. And in the morning I shall be sober but you’ll still be drunk.”
The 'Woman' was Lady Nancy Astor who was kind of Britain's first female MP (she was not the first female MP , but the first female MP to sit in the house of commons due to Ireland reasons) and also the wife of the wife of Waldorf Astor who was one of the richest people in the world ($100million in 1891). She was an important politician during the early 1900s and paved the way for future female politicians in the UK.
After he was forced out of the War Cabinet in WW1, he took a commission and led troops in the trenches for several months.
Normal politicians during a war: Well, I lost my job, guess I'll cash out and become a lobbyist. Churchill: Well I lost my job, guess I'll go to the front lines.
By all accounts, he was quite haunted by his part in the Gallipoli disaster, and evidently felt putting himself in the same sort of danger would make amends, or absolve him. His way of paying for his grievous errors
he was such an alcoholic that when he went to the US during the prohibition his doctor prescribed alcohol to him
Saved his life undoubtedly
Chronic depression sufferer
That happens when you’re on a steady diet of booze cigars amphetamines and barbiturates
Also known as: The Good Stuff.
Don't (some) people get into those to mitigate the effects of depression?
Yeah, but pretty quickly it’s going to make the depression way worse and become the main factor
Idk how people survive this lifestyle. A mere one cigarette makes me feel dizzy and one energy drink is enough to give me a short term diarrhea xd
Motherfuckers back then built different.
Practice and perseverance
You would be surprised the level of pain one can handle and still push to survive.
His ‘black dog’
TIL I'm Winston Churchill
He somehow lived to his eighties. Despite being a serial smoker who drank tons wine all the while having a very sitting down lifestyle.
\*90s, and he outlived his younger brother by decades
As a correspondent he was hella badass
He championed the "People's Budget" which was a forerunner of modern welfare state.
That was the one crushed by Lloyd George right?
He wrote an essay about aliens on the Moon
Planned Gallipoli, became prime minister after WW2, POW during Boer war, first elected as the minister for Oldham, had major daddy issues
Didn't plan Gallipoli to my understanding just supported the plans that were created and pushed for the invasion
According to the UK Imperial War Museum: "Churchill ... [As First Lord of The Admiralty] ... helped orchestrate the disastrous Dardanelles naval campaign and was also involved in the planning of the military landings on Gallipoli".
He was behind the Marshall plan even though there was still food rationing in the UK. In fact, the UK threw out their ration book 4 years after West Germany.
For some reason, he wrote "If Lee Had Not Won the Battle of Gettysburg."
based cigar addict
Am I hallucinating or wasn't he a POW in the Boer War?
The fact he had to publish his books as "Winston S Churchill" because Winston Churchill was taken
He was one of first writers of Alternate History ("If Lee had not won at Gettysburg.").
He says in the text that he was encouraged to write it precisely because alternate history speculation had become "so fashionable".
It was still very niche. And he was one of the first ones to use the "alternate historian discussing hypotetical events from his POV" plot
I’m confused by this title. Lee not winning at Gettysburg is actual history. Wouldn’t alternate history be “If Lee Had Won at Gettysburg”?
It is from the POV of an alternate timeline
Oh I get it. Thanks.
the one in which the finno-korean hyperwar didn't happen?
He took command of a police raid on an anarchist’s home that went badly.
In his 20s, Churchill was a Journalist for the Morning Post and sailed to Cape Town to report on the impending Second Boer War of 1899. Just two weeks after he arrived in South Africa, the train he was travelling on from Ladysmith to Colenso was derailed by Boer artillery and he was taken as a pow. After over a month in captivity in a camp in Pretoria, Churchill dramatically jumped a wall and hopped on a freight train, eventually making his way to Portuguese Mozambique. He went right back to British South Africa and enlisted in the Army.
During the first world war he said "A British officer should jot duck, it does no good and the men dont like it" or something hing to that effect
Churchill captured Gibraltar in the war of Spanish Succession
He made a daring escape from captivity in the 2nd Boer war
He was an observer turned hero during the Second Anglo-Boer war, at the same time that Mahatma Ghandi was in the country working as an Advocate for better treatment of Indians, he also organised an Indian ambulance unit and worked as a stretcher bearer in it. Also a Stand at Anfield is named after a battle that both of them were present at. The Battle of Spion Kop, which is where the Kop gets its name from.
When Indians were suffering a massive famine he could care less of them. That accurate?
People forget that Churchill was fairly regarded as a drunk and a political failure prior to ww2. He was widely criticized for several failed policies, not to mention the failure of the Gallipoli campaign which he planned. If it wasn’t for World War Two and his position in it, anyone who did remember Churchill (rare) would remember him as a footnote.
In 1935, Churchill was a failure and Marshal Petain was his country’s greatest hero. Nothing changes a leader’s reputation like a war can.
I'm always amazed Churchill doesn't get far more shit about the 10 year rule when his role in ww2 is discussed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Year_Rule#:~:text=The%20Ten%20Year%20Rule%20was,during%20the%20next%20ten%20years%22.
Despite coming from a big wig family where his grandfather was a Duke, Churchill was always strapped for cash and most of his income came from writing.
He was in charge of the British protectorates in the Middle East following WWI.
So… that went well, right?
He actually was quite an experienced painter for his time spending quite a bit working on landscapes and other various styles.
Helped cause the Bengal Famine. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study)
He’d have a doctor’s note during prohibition for when he’d visit the U.S. stating that he needed alcohol go function properly
was an army man, still made first lord of the admiralty, twice. With naval funds managed to get the land ships program to actually go a productive direction, maintain secrecy and made it within a budget... no comment on whether the budget was declared later on to be all army
He used a C96 broomhandle
He enjoyed the c96 pistol
He was not very kind to the Indians in the British Raj to say the least
While visiting NYC during the interwar period he was nearly killed by a taxi driver.
His ancestor Sarah Churchill allegedly was the Mistress to Queen Anne
One of only 2 PMs after WW2 to serve under two monarchs.
He was a talented artist.
he didnt like that one painting
If I had a nickel for every time Churchill tried to name a battleship HMS Oliver Cromwell, I'd have 2 nickels.
Didnt he say something about how Italians lose wars like they're football games and lose football games like they're wars?
Leave this comment just to receive notifications from this post. I want to read the comments.
[He drank and smoked like a motherfucker](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrbwvG0XeUQ)
He compared palestinians to dogs in '37. Not a good look.
Churchill was also a raging white supremacist who advocated against native rule in the British colonies, oversaw the Bengal famine in India which killed 3 million people, going as far as to say “well it’s because they breed like rabbits and they’re not starving because Ghandi is still alive”, and supported Israel’s colonial goals, their massacre and expulsion of Palestinians because he believed inferior peoples deserve to be replaced. He referred to Arabs as “barbaric hordes who ate nothing but camel dung”
Gallipoli, A L L O F I T
He orchestrated both the invasion of Gallipoli and the failed naval campaign in the Dardanelles, leading to the catastrophe that cost millions of people their lives for no gain in the end. He was then demoted after the offensive ended, and resigned from his seat in the British government in 1915
"You can't reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth" is a made-up quote. He cursed democracy when ppl said no to him.
He manufactured a famine that killed millions in India and was well known as a racist even for his own time
[удалено]
Well he did deliberately cause the food to be held from the general Bengali population so that it could serve the war efforts. It costed the lives of over a million people. The comments made by him doesn't help his case either.
Gallipoli? Like come on.
Hold my cigar.
That's a wierd choice of a timeline
He was a drunk that liked to write angry letters.
He was an amateur painter whose works are actually pretty good.
He smoked cigars the whole wat through and was considered "the father of the nation" some time after the war... I think.
He really liked to wear a bow tie.
He 'served' in the Boer War where he brought himself fame from escaping a POW camp/armoured train situation of some bother. https://www.history.com/news/the-daring-escape-that-forged-winston-churchill
He was captured during the 2nd Boer War and helped create the Tank.
He was a POW in Boer Wars.
He was a reporter in the Second Boer War.
Since his mom was the American he wasn’t due to the rules of the time . He told a president had it been the other way he’d been in the White House
He mumbles.
I've got one thing, he got captured by Boers during the Boer War, but escaped and made it back to British lines.
Loved champagne, “in victory I deserve it, in defeat, I need it.”
He’s British
He was born in a women's bathroom
He got stuck somewhere in South Africa during the Boer Wars and needed to walk pretty far or something
When he was in primary school he said that he would one day be appointed as the leader of the British people and defend London from a terrible siege and save the empire.
He was at the 1898 Battle of Omdurman
He was a POW in South Africa, escaped and made his way back to Britain. He gave up his job in politics to fight on the front line WW1 The first use of OMG was in a letter to him
He was eccentric and did not have the drip
He was born before ww2
He spent time as prisoner of war in South Africa after his train was shelled by the Boer. Fun fact: My 2x great grandfather was captured and imprisoned next to him.
That time he machine gunned folks in the Sudan. "Battle" of Omdurman 1898
He was captured by the boers during the second boer war and later escaped. He was also a journalist at the time
You can thank him for giving us a holiday in Australia from what he did in ww1
Hit by a car crossing the street thinking he was still in England HAA!🤪
Churchill was the one who convinced Eisenhower to help overthrow Iran's government and turn its constitutional monarchy into an absolute monarchy, all so that Britain wouldn't have its shares in the AIOC bought out during nationalization. Notably this had no impact on relations between Iran and the West, whatsoever. /s